Former Bush National Security Advisor Optimistic on Iran Deal

February 11, 2014 | Edited by Lauren Mladenka and Geoff Wilson

Hadley on Iran deal - Stephen Hadley, former National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush, noted in an interview with Al-Monitor that the first phase agreement with Iran “was better than a lot of people expected” and expressed hope about getting a final deal. "I am optimistic. Both sides have too much to lose if they don’t get an agreement. The difficulty will be in selling it to domestic critics,” said Hadley.

--On the question of an agreement that allows Iran some enrichment capability, Hadley said, “Would I prefer them to have no enrichment? Of course. The question is, is it realistic? A lot of people who follow this say some enrichment will be part of the deal and a lot of people suggest rightly that the initial agreement signaled as much.”

--”At the end of the day, if we can come up with a limited enrichment capability that really puts the Iranians back so that breakout is a year to 18 months away, if the alternative is a military strike and all the international isolation of Israel that is likely to follow that, my guess is that the Israelis will choke down the agreement,” said Hadley. Full interview with Barbara Slavin here. http://bit.ly/1gpIVpP

Getting to a deal with Iran - “The stakes could not be higher—or the issues tougher—as the world’s six major powers and Iran launch talks February 18 on final resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis. “The goal ‘is to reach a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful,’ says the temporary Joint Plan of Action, which calls for six months of negotiations. If talks fail, the prospects of military action—and potentially another Middle East conflict—soar.” Joe Cirincione outlines the six pivotal issues that the world powers and Iran must reach agreement on for there to be a final deal in a new article for the Iran Primer. http://bit.ly/1m2B5th

Tweet - @nukes_of_hazard: Clapper to SASC: New Iran sanctions now would be counterproductive; implicit threat Congress could pass more sanctions more than sufficient

Harmful sanctions - “In nuclear negotiations, as in medicine, a core principle is: "First, do no harm,” writes Daryl Kimball in The Hill. “Unfortunately, the ‘Iran Nuclear Weapon Free Act’ (S. 1881) introduced by Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.) would impose new sanctions on Iran and conditions for negotiations on its nuclear program that would derail the breakthrough nuclear deal between the United States and its P5+1 partners and Iran and further complicate the negotiations for a final agreement to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.”

--“Further sanctions are not necessary at this time. The existing, core sanctions regime provides more than sufficient leverage on Iran to take further concrete measures to restrain its nuclear potential and improve transparency measure necessary to guard against a secret nuclear weapons effort in the future,” Kimball says. “Congress has a vital role to play in solving U.S. foreign policy challenges. S. 1881, however, would complicate international efforts to secure a sustainable, verifiable diplomatic agreement that significantly reduces Iran's capacity to produce nuclear bomb material and increases international inspection authority to help detect and deter any potential secret nuclear weapons effort in the future.” Full article here.http://bit.ly/1dERQAx

Providing cooperation - “The United Nations praised Iran’s decision to give investigators new information about a reactor, the second time in a week the Persian Gulf nation has signaled willingness to compromise on its Arak project,” reports Jonathan Tirone for Bloomberg. Get the full story here. http://bloom.bg/Nyq4kg

Realistic expectations - “A Democratic member of Congress leading the push for diplomacy with Iran said on Monday that it’s unrealistic to expect Tehran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure and permanently cease all uranium enrichment as part of a final agreement with the U.S. and its international partners on its nuclear program,” writes Ben Armbruster for ThinkProgress. “I don’t believe that there is a deal that Iran can agree to that will completely zero out their program,” Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) told ThinkProgress in an interview. “So I think that anyone who insists on that provision basically is insisting that there not be a final deal.” http://bit.ly/MIfbeD

Testing, testing - North Korea is taking actions consistent with them performing another nuclear test or ballistic missile test, Global Security Newswire reports. ”Satellite images taken in the last year have shown signs of digging work around potential new tunnels that could host another test. However, there are no indications that another atomic trial will be carried out in the near-future...The specialist website ‘38 North,’ which monitors North Korea's strategic facilities, last week announced that construction appeared almost done on a big new launch tower at Dongchang-ri that could be used for further space-rocket firings. These are widely seen as a cover for long-range ballistic missile tests.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/1fWyBVJ

High level talks - “North and South Korea have agreed to hold rare high-level talks Wednesday on a range of "major" issues, before a planned reunion of family members divided by the Korean War,” reports Giles Hewitt for the AFP. “The meeting involving officials from the South's Defence Ministry, Unification Ministry and Presidential Office will take place at the border truce village of Panmunjom, unification ministry spokesman Kim Eui-Do told reporters Tuesday. It [will] be the first high-level sit-down by the rivals since South Korean President Park Geun-Hye took office a year ago.” Read the full report here. http://bit.ly/1jsRipJ

DOD vexed by issues of discipline, ethics - “The Pentagon has spent years grappling with the problems that have embarrassed the Navy and Air Force this winter, but it still doesn’t know how to fix them,” writes Philip Ewing for Politico. “The Defense Department and the military services have convened several major investigations into the nuclear mission since the Air Force’s first raft of nuclear-weapons scandals in 2007 and the Navy’s recent discovery of answer-sharing on tests. And distinguished panels of current or former leaders have looked into the incidents and submitted their findings in hundreds of pages that the brass promised to take on board. The problem is, they didn’t seem to take, and officials aren’t sure why.” Get the full story here. http://politi.co/LS01mh

Nuclear winter - “As the United States struggles to deal with budget problems, as the U.S. Air Force deals with boredom, poor morale, drug use, and cheating on certification exams by their personnel entrusted with control of nuclear missiles, we have a solution that will save money as well as make the world a much safer place – get rid of most of our nuclear weapons immediately,” write Alan Robock and Owen Brian Toon for the Federation of American Scientists. “Our recent work shows that a nuclear war between any two countries each using only 50 Hiroshima-sized atom bombs… could produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history.”

--“Clearly, the U.S. and Russia must demonstrate leadership on these issues, for the good of the planet and to set an example for other current and potential nuclear states. The only way to avoid a global climatic catastrophe would be to reduce each arsenal well below new START levels. What level of devastation constitutes effective deterrence – one city destroyed? Ten? One answer is clear: there are too many nuclear weapons in the world, by as much as a factor of 1000, for anyone, anywhere in the world to be safe from their potential effects.” Full piece here. http://bit.ly/1en3Pm9

Russia and the INF - Allegations concerning Russia’s violation of the INF treaty, “create a highly challenging situation. They will likely further worsen the bilateral US-Russian relationship, which is already at a low point; they are bound to further weaken the prospects of additional reductions of nuclear weapons; and they could complicate President Obama’s efforts to win congressional support for his Iran policy and a key arms control nominee, write Nikolai Sokov and Miles A. Pomper for The National Interest.

--”The issue of INF compliance encompasses three separate, but closely related strands. One is technical—the substance of allegations, the properties of the missiles in question, and verification issues. Another relates to arms control and strategic concerns—how the INF treaty provisions fit or don’t fit into the Russian national-security strategy. The third is politics—the reasons why allegations about treaty noncompliance continue to surface in public debate and the likely consequences for US foreign policy.” Full article here. http://bit.ly/1ns1qMz

Changing threats - “The intelligence community may have missed the impending collapse of Moscow’s empire in the late 1980s, but the Worldwide Threat Assessment presented to the Congress earlier this month by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper certainly reflects an awareness that Russia today is no longer an enemy of the United States,” writes Greg Thielmann for the Arms Control Association. “How else to explain that Clapper’s 27-page Statement for the Record makes no mention of Russia’s nuclear arsenal?”

--“The 2014 threat survey leads with ‘cyber,’ includes eight other major categories, including ‘natural resources’ and ‘health risks,’ and dissects 30 specific regional threats,” Thielmann says. “The obvious explanation for this omission is that the intelligence community regards the chances of a Russian nuclear attack to be so remote that it is not worth mentioning… One of the most important jobs of the intelligence community is to analyze objectively the most serious threats facing the country. It is the job of others to draw appropriate conclusions regarding the obvious disconnect between the Worldwide Threat Assessment and U.S. nuclear force posture. A long-overdue task of U.S. political leadership is to bring the size and posture of the U.S. nuclear arsenal into alignment with the threat. This means moving expeditiously to a smaller nuclear force at a lower state of readiness.” Read the full article here. http://bit.ly/1bRRMAI

Quick-hits:

--“Teachable Moments: Leo Szilard’s work led to atomic weapons, originator of nuclear fission eventually opposed military use” by Frank Daniels III for The Tennessean. http://tnne.ws/1bm3UfM

--“Testimony of David Albright Institute for Science and International Security Vefore the Committee on Foreign Relations on the Negotiations On Iran’s Nuclear Program.” (pdf) http://bit.ly/1gpKFzf

Events:

--“Discussion on the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise.” Discussion with Deborah Lee James, Secretary of the Air Force, and Lt. Gen Stephen Wilson, Commander, Air Force Global Strike Command. Feb. 12 from 9:00-10:00 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1616 Rhode Island Ave. NW. RSVP here.http://bit.ly/1npxyQS

--“Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.” Book launch with Gareth Porter. Feb. 13 from 12:00-1:30 at Public Citizen, 1600 20th St. NW. RSVP online. http://bit.ly/M5i1KI

--“U.S.-Russian Relations in the 21st Century.” Discussion with Angela Stent, Fiona Hill, and Peter Baker. Feb. 18 from 2:00-3:30 at Brookings Institution, Falk Auditorium, 1775 Massachusetts Ave. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1bqFDTe

--“Reestablishing US Diplomatic Presence in Iran.” Discussion with Ramin Asgard, John Limbert, Morad Ghorban; moderated by Barbara Slavin. Feb. 19 at 10:00 at the Atlantic Council, 1030 15th St. NW, 12th floor. RSVP here.http://bit.ly/1lp96QC

--“A Preview of the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit.” Discussion with Graham Allison. Feb. 20 from 6:00-8:00 at George Washington University, Lindner Family Commons, Room 602, 1957 E St. NW. RSVP here. http://bit.ly/1iR0oZY